British scientists will be allowed to research devastating diseases such as Alzheimer‚Äôs and Parkinson‚Äôs using human-animal embryos, after the House of Commons rejected a ban yesterday.

An amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would have outlawed the creation of ‚Äúhuman admixed embryos‚ÄĚ for medical research was defeated in a free vote by a majority of 160, preserving what Gordon Brown regarded as a central element of the legislation.

The Government is braced for defeat today, however, on a separate clause that would scrap the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child‚Äôs need for a father before treating patients. MPs will also consider amendments tonight that would cut the legal limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks....

"MPs will also consider amendments tonight that would cut the legal limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks."

The news today is that the 24 week limit on the murder of infants remains extant.

Once an embryo is fertilized there is only one way which it can go; - That is called life. (Unless nature dictates otherwise)

If for any reason you stop or prevent it from continuing upon the course of life, whether one day old, one month old, nine months old or eighty years old; - Then the state to which you bring it is the opposite of life. THAT is called death.

The means by which mortals transfer that life to death is called killing. When this is observed to be culpable of force other than nature, THIS is called murder.

Amen Engineer The sad thing I believe the biggest combatant against this blasphemy were not Christians but English Catholic Church, q.v., URL=http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC1299W2.htm>Is A Catholic Christian An Oxymoron?. No non-Christian group should have led this fight, but there should have been such a pervasive number of Christians in Britain that this law should have been nipped in the bud.

We in the U.S., have nothing to be smug about, we are also marching down the same road.

Let's get this straight. The "religious objections" on this question are rooted in the affirmation that every single human being -- including the tiny human embryo -- is made in the image of God, and it never to be used as a commodity, but always respected as a person. The embryo is never to be used -- much less destroyed -- as a means to any other end, however good that end may be in itself.

On the matter of animal/human embryos, the grounds of objection are basically the same, with the added concern that combining animal & human genetic material diminishes human dignity. This is no small matter.

Brown proposes to let these scientists proceed in using and destroying human embryos and in creating animal/human embryos for research. Yet he has the audacity to claim that this can be done with "a sincere respect for religious beliefs." The scale of that audacity is breathtaking.

The PM would have been far more honest if he had simply stated that he thinks the "religious objections" are rubbish or nonsense, or if he had just stated outright that his government would not be restrained by these convictions."AlbertMohler.com